4.7 Article

Comparative Evaluation of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus-Based Live Attenuated Vaccines

期刊

VACCINES
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9050473

关键词

lumpy skin disease; vaccine evaluation; live attenuated vaccines; lumpy skin disease vaccine

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1126866]
  2. Belgian Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment [RT 15/3]
  3. GALVmed project [CAO-R34A0856]
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1126866] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared five homologous live attenuated LSDV vaccines and found that all of them were able to protect against a challenge with virulent LSDV. There were important differences in side effects such as a local reaction and a Neethling response upon vaccination between the analyzed vaccines, which could have implications in the field applicability of some of these LSDV LAVs.
Vaccines form the cornerstone of any control, eradication and preventative strategy and this is no different for lumpy skin disease. However, the usefulness of a vaccine is determined by a multiplicity of factors which include stability, efficiency, safety and ease of use, to name a few. Although the vaccination campaign in the Balkans against lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) was successful and has been implemented with success in the past in other countries, data of vaccine failure have also been reported. It was therefore the purpose of this study to compare five homologous live attenuated LSDV vaccines (LSDV LAV) in a standardized setting. All five LSDV LAVs studied were able to protect against a challenge with virulent LSDV. Aside from small differences in serological responses, important differences were seen in side effects such as a local reaction and a Neethling response upon vaccination between the analyzed vaccines. These observations can have important implications in the applicability in the field for some of these LSDV LAVs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据